5

Architectural CompetitionEditors’ notes

Introduction

This issue of the Nordic Journal of Architectural Research is the outcome of the Nordic Symposium

on Architectural Competitions which was held in Stockholm, 16-18 October, 2008. We are pleased

for the opportunity to present a cross-section of the papers in this journal. The hope is that the arti-

cles will inspire critical reflections, initiate new research projects, and contribute to establishing

long-term accumulation of scientific knowledge and networking about architectural competitions.

Research on architectural competition is a rather new field of study which raises many important

questions both for practicing architects, architectural associations and academia looking for a dee-

per theoretical and methodological knowledge on competition. So far, there are only few post-gra-

duate and PhD theses in Europe focusing on competitions in architecture and urban design. There

are few conferences held on competitions mainly directed to exhibit competition projects and cata-

logues.

The Nordic Symposium on Architectural Competition was organized by the School of Architecture

and the Built Environment at the Royal Institute of Technology in close cooperation with the Nordic

Association of Architecture Research. It was aimed to invite the peer-reviewed research papers to

be discussed thoroughly at the workshops and later on for publishing the book of proceedings. The

symposium in Stockholm was probably the first scientific conference on architectural competitions

in the Nordic countries and perhaps in the rest of Europe. We tried to verify this claim afterwards by

checking the English language registers, the relevant data bases, and the Internet. We were surpri-

sed to finding out that there were not any scientific conferences in this field, especially with regard

to architectural competitions as a profession-based institution that has been in practice for over 100

years in Europe.

The idea for a conference on architecture and urban design competitions grew out of a major rese-

arch programme at the School of Architecture and the Built Environment at the Royal Institute of

Technology in Stockholm when in 2004 one of the PhD research projects on architectural competiti-

on received a grant. This became a strong reason for us to meet colleagues from the Nordic coun-

tries as well as other parts of the world to exchange information and share experiences.

The purpose of the symposium was to critically review, clarify, and discuss architectural competiti-

ons from different viewpoints. Both practitioners and researchers were invited to join the sympo-

sium.

The invitation outlined four themes that established the framework of the symposium:

• Architectural History Theme: Background, establishment, demands, use and the development of

roles of the architectural competition for the building sector.

• Architectural Judgment Theme: Organization, judging, ranking and selecting an entry; how the

jurors select or appoint a winner and how they justify/motivate their choice.

• Professional Theme: The importance of architectural competition for developing best practice, pro-

fessional skills, designing new ideas, and as a way to purchase architects services.

• Political Power and Urban Design Theme: Architectural competition as political issue in design of

public buildings, public spaces, and town planning. Competition as a way to express power, making

decision for the future built environments.

In 2007, an organization committee at the School of Architecture and the Built Environment was

organized responsible for planning the symposium consisted of Dr. Magnus Rönn, Dr. Reza

Kazemian and PhD-student Jonas E Andersson. A scientific committee of experienced researchers

and experts from different Nordic countries was appointed to review the submitted papers.

The organization of symposium was followed a quite classical academic model. The symposium

was made up of invited key-note speakers, parallel workshops, panel discussions, and one-day

excursion. Two of the four key-note speakers were researchers in the field of architectural competi-

tion and the others were one practicing architect and one town planner. The key-note speakers

were selected in a way to cover the themes of the symposium from their own expertise and experi-

ence. The persons were:

• Architect Tom Danielsen, partner in C.F. Møller, Århus

• Associate professor, Hélène Lipstadt, researcher/ former lecturer at MIT, Massachusetts

• Architect Mikael Sundman, Helsinki City planning Department, Helsinki

• Professor Elisabeth Tostrup, the Oslo School of Architecture and Design, Oslo

The symposium has brought together several interesting topics submitted by PhD students and

senior researchers from Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, England, Spain, Switzerland, Greece

and the USA. About 50 persons attended the symposium. The papers were discussed in three paral-

lel workshops during two days by the following workshop leaders: Dr. Reza Kazemian, PhD-student

Stina Hagelqvist, and Dr. Inga Britt Werner. One of the workshops was specified to papers written in

the Nordic languages.

Each participant with papers was given 40 minutes time for presentation and critique. Two partici-

pants in each workshop were appointed as opponents by the organization committee. This was done

to enable the opponents to read the papers beforehand and prepare questions so they could contri-

bute to a qualified discussion in the respective workshops. The papers were also available to other

participants (with password) on the symposium’s homepage.

The participants have been given the opportunity to revise their texts twice before publication, partly

after comments from the opponents and partly after final review by the symposium’s scientific com-

mittee.

The symposium continued with panel discussions chaired by Professor Rolf Johansson. Each

workshop leader reported about the content and procedures of the workshop. Then the key-note

speakers concluded their impressions of the symposium and then after the public had the opportu-

nity to ask questions.

The symposium closed with a half day excursion to the (Asplund) City Library in Stockholm which

was the object of a two-stage international architectural competition. The City Library extension

project attracted a lot of attention. It was an open competition at the first stage which became an

invited competition at the second stage. The first stage resulted in 1,170 proposals which made this

one of the biggest competitions ever. Six proposals were chosen for the second stage. Ms. Katarina

Nordisk Arkitekturforskning 2/3-20096

Editors’ notes: Architectural Competition 7

Nilsson, the competition secretary from the Swedish Architects, was functioned as the secretary of

the jury committee. During the study visit she provided information about the judgment process and

how the jury went about choosing the first prize winner. The jury’s choice has been the object of

much debate in Sweden. In October 2009, the arranger (Stockholm City) announced that the win-

ning entry was not to be carried out because of financial reason.

Some overlapping perspectives

We have noticed that there are (at least) four distinct perspectives in architectural competitions

which are described in varying degrees in selected papers in this issue of the journal. We have cho-

sen to present eleven papers; seven papers by senior researchers and four papers by PhD students.

The papers are dealing with different aspects of the architectural competition. The competitions

context can be summarized as follows:

ResearchFirstly, we see a growing interest in architectural competition as a new research field at universities

and colleges. The symposium in Stockholm can be seen as an expression of academic interest in

the field. We are observing a growing number of PhD dissertations that are directed towards archi-

tectural competition issues. Through the symposium we have been able to identify about 10 ongoing

PhD projects in Europe, from the newly started to almost final phases. These PhD projects vary in

content and themes; from architectural history to contemporary and actual issues. Competition in

architecture and urban design is turning into a scientific field of its own. There is therefore a need

for a research network, a group of researchers who have architectural and urban design competiti-

ons as their common research ground at universities and colleges.

MarketSecondly, we assert a growing interest for using competition as a tool for negotiating architectural

procurement. This is the market dimension of the competition that is connected to the changes in

regulations at a European level. The EU directive on project competitions (directive 2004/18/EC),

provides common procurement regulations and laws in the member states. It has led to competiti-

ons being used as a means for public assigners to purchase services. The effect of this directive is

that it is no longer possible to control the participation in competitions by limiting them geographi-

cally. The basic principle is that competitions should be open for everyone within the EU.

Competitions by invitation are made available through prequalification. The regulations enable

architectural competition to serve as a tool that can be used in several ways; partly for providing

and visualizing background material for decision-making, partly to encourage innovative solutions

to design problems and partly as a method for selecting architects for public building procure-

ments. The post-industrial picture of architectural competitions is marked by a market-oriented

perspective that pays tribute to competition in the development of architecture and urban design.

PoliticsThirdly, there is a political interest in architectural competitions that coincides with deregulation

and global competition. The conclusions available from the European Council, “on architecture: cul-

ture’s contribution to sustainable development” (2008/C 319/05), can be seen as an expression of

this politically oriented interest. The Resolution has contributed to national policy documents by

many member states.1

Design and architecture policy documents appeared in the Nordic countries as a new political field

during the 1990s. These architectural policy programmes were drawn up by the government offici-

als sometimes together with representatives from the architectural associations. The programmes

are know in Sweden as, Forms for the future (1997), in Finland as, Finland’s Architectural Policy

(1998), in Norway as, Surroundings as Culture: Action Programme for Aesthetics in Public Environment

(1992) and Aesthetics in Government Building and Constructions (1997) and Architecture. Now (2009),

in Denmark as, Danish Architecture Policy (1994), Architecture 1996 and A Nation of Architecture

Denmark (2007). In these policy documents the architectural competition is seen as a tool for the

design quality improvement of architecture and town planning. The Nordic governments encourage

public promoters to arrange competitions on a larger scale. A similar development with govern-

ment-based architectural policy programmes is found elsewhere in Europe, among them in the

Netherlands a series of policy documents appeared such as, Space for Architecture (1991),

Nordisk Arkitekturforskning 2/3-20098

Architecture of Space (1996), Constructing the Netherlands (2001) and Action Programme Space and

Culture (2005). In Ireland we have, Action on Architecture (2002), in Scotland, Building our Legacy:

Statement on Scotland’s architecture policy (2007), in Germany, Building Culture in Germany (2001) and

in Austria, The Austrian Report on Building Culture (2006). In addition to these national programmes,

cities, municipalities and large property companies have developed their own programmes for

quality assurance in architecture and urban design.

ProfessionFourthly, architectural competitions are in architects’ own interest. The need for modern competiti-

on system arose in Europe at the end of the 1800s when architects began to organize themselves to

better protect their own common interests. The industrialized societies generated new tasks

through competitions in order to find out solutions for new challenges. One of the first tasks of the

architect associations was to establish new rules for architectural competitions and have them be

accepted internally among their own members and externally by competition sponsors and other

potential clients. Competition regulations were established in the Nordic countries at the beginning

of the 1900s and today the architect associations have the responsibility to organise and administer

competitions. Such is the case at least in the Nordic countries. The influence from the architect

associations is expressed in the competition regulations which are generally accepted by the buil-

ding sector, their own competition committees and the competition secretary who chooses mem-

bers of the competition jury. The architect associations vividly reflect their interests in their require-

ment that the competition programme must be approved by the associations. The Nordic architect

associations usually appoint two persons as their representatives at the jury committees. The asso-

ciations vend their competition services to the clients, from the programme brief to the administra-

tion of the competition procedures. The architect associations advertise the results of the competiti-

ons in their own publications and websites. In this sense the competition contributes to professional

knowledge.

Here, we wish to thank the key-note speakers for their interesting lectures; the workshop leaders,

the Swedish competition secretary for her stimulating presentation of the jury work during the com-

petition of the City Library extension project, the members of the scientific committee who reviewed

the papers, and all the participants for their valuable contributions.

We also would like to express our gratitude for the all supports we received to plan and organize

the symposium. We received financial support from the following companies and research councils:

ARQ; Foundation for Architecture Research, Estrid Ericssons Foundation, F-foundation, SWECO

Architects, The Swedish Fortifications Agency, The Swedish Research Council for Environment,

Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (FORMAS) and finally The School of Architecture and the

Built Environment at KTH Royal Institute of Technology.

Stockholm, August 2009

Jonas E. Andersson Reza Kazemian Magnus Rönn

NOTES

1 For more information see European Forum for Architectural Policies, www.architecture-forum.net and

www.sadas-pea.gr/EFAPhistory.pdf.